So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell very appropriately, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.
Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.
Hmmm, you don't have a 5DII in your sig, interesting that you bash and marginalize the camera's AF system. Is that all based on stuff you've read from other people? It's going on 4 years old, so sure it could be better, but it really isn't that bad. I think more of the problem is user error, using the wrong setting or combination of settings.
Think about how many people bought 5DIIs that had barely any photography experience (I was one of them, although I had a T2i for 8 months beforehand). Now think about how easily those people may have overlooked something and how quick they may have been to judge. Plus you have a bunch of fools on the internet telling them "oh it sucks," so they go take 3 pictures and 1 is out of focus and they figure "oh well the internet said it sucks so it must suck, couldn't be me."
That's pretty much what happen to me, I played around with it, remembered that everyone had said that it sucked, and figured that it must have. But then months later I played around with the settings some more and realized that it really wasn't bad at all (and this was shooting my dogs running full speed).
And I'm sure tons of those people went out and tried to shoot sports and other fast-moving stuff, and that's setting yourself up for disappointment. The 5D was never marketed as a fast sports camera, not at all. Sure the 5D may not be the best, but if you're doing studio work it does absolutely fine.
Neuro is right, people take the best aspects of multiple cameras and smash them all together and hope that they get one cure-all camera, but it just doesn't work like that. All of them are fantasizing and they all want a single, dirt cheap camera to come out that does everything that they personally want it to do.